I've been thinking a lot about the world recently and how it's changed over the last 20, 30, 40 years. Twenty or 30 years ago, if a chicken caught a cold and sneezed and died in a remote village in East Asia, it would have been a tragedy for the chicken and its closest relatives, but I don't think there was much possibility of us fearing a global pandemic and the deaths of millions.

最近我常常思考我們的世界 以及它在過去的20，30，40年里經歷了何等的轉變 20或30年前， 如果在東亞一個遙遠村落里，一只雞 患了感冒，打個噴嚏然后死了， 對那只雞和它的近親來說 可能是個災難， 但我想我們不太可能會 因此而擔心全球流行病 和數百萬人的死亡。

Twenty or 30 years ago, if a bank in North America lent too much money to some people who couldn't afford to pay it back and the bank went bust, that was bad for the lender and bad for the borrower, but we didn't imagine it would bring the global economic system to its knees for nearly a decade.

20或30年前，如果北美的一家銀行 借出了太多錢 給那些無力償還的人 并因此而倒閉了， 只是借貸雙方 運氣不好而已， 但我們不會想到 這會給全球經濟系統帶來 將近10年的癱瘓期。

This is globalization. This is the miracle that has enabled us to transship our bodies and our minds and our words and our pictures and our ideas and our teaching and our learning around the planet ever faster and ever cheaper.

這就是全球化。 這就是奇跡，它已經讓 我們的身體，我們的頭腦、 我們的語言、圖像以及我們的思想、 還有我們的教育和學習都圍繞這個星球 運轉得更快、成本更低。

It's brought a lot of bad stuff, like the stuff that I just described, but it's also brought a lot of good stuff. A lot of us are not aware of the extraordinary successes of the Millennium Development Goals, several of which have achieved their targets long before the due date.

它帶來很多壞事， 比如我剛才舉的例子。 但它也帶來許多好事。 我們當中很多人并不了解 千禧年發展目標取得了非凡的成就， 有幾個遠在截止日期之前 就完成了預定目標。

That proves that this species of humanity is capable of achieving extraordinary progress if it really acts together and it really tries hard. But if I had to put it in a nutshell these days, I sort of feel that globalization has taken us by surprise, and we've been slow to respond to it. If you look at the downside of globalization, it really does seem to be sometimes overwhelming.

這證明了人類這個物種 能夠取得超凡的進展， 如果我們真正地一起合作并努力的話。 但如果我簡明扼要地說， 我覺得全球化有點兒 讓我們措手不及， 我們對它的回應太慢了。 如果你看看全球化的負面影響， 有時候的確有點兒難以應付。

All of the grand challenges that we face today, like climate change and human rights and demographics and terrorism and pandemics and narco-trafficking and human slavery and species loss, I could go on, we're not making an awful lot of progress against an awful lot of those challenges.

今天我們面對的所有重大挑戰， 像氣候變化或人權問題 還有人口問題、恐怖主義和流行病 還有毒品走私和奴隸販賣 以及物種滅絕，我可以一直說下去， 我們在這么多可怕的挑戰面前 并沒有取得多么重大進展。

So in a nutshell, that's the challenge that we all face today at this interesting point in history. That's clearly what we've got to do next.

所以簡單來說， 這就是我們所有人今天面臨的挑戰， 在這個有意思的歷史時期。

We've somehow got to get our act together and we've got to figure out how to globalize the solutions better so that we don't simply become a species which is the victim of the globalization of problems.

這很明顯是我們接下來要做的。 我們要設法共同行動起來 我們要想辦法如何更好的 解決全球化的問題 以至于我們不會淪為 全球化問題中受害的一個種群。

Why are we so slow at achieving these advances? What's the reason for it? Well, there are, of course, a number of reasons, but perhaps the primary reason is because we're still organized as a species in the same way that we were organized 200 or 300 years ago.

為什么我們取得進展的速度如此緩慢？ 原因是什么？ 當然，這有許多原因。 但也許最首要的原因 是我們這個物種的機構組成 與200或300年前的 還是一樣。

There's one superpower left on the planet and that is the seven billion people, the seven billion of us who cause all these problems, the same seven billion, by the way, who will resolve them all.

目前世界上只有一個超能力 那就是這7億人口， 我們這7億人，造成了所有這些問題， 但同樣的7億人， 也要解決這些問題。

But how are those seven billion organized? They're still organized in 200 or so nation-states, and the nations have governments that make rules and cause us to behave in certain ways.

但這7億人是怎么組織起來的呢？ 他們還是由200多個國家或者多民族國家組成， 國家都有政府 頒布法律 并要求我們遵守一定的準則。

And that's a pretty efficient system, but the problem is that the way that those laws are made and the way those governments think is absolutely wrong for the solution of global problems, because it all looks inwards.

這是一個相當有效的體制， 但問題是這些法律的形成 以及政府思考問題的方式 在解決全球問題上是完全錯誤的， 因為它只看到國內。

The politicians that we elect and the politicians we don't elect, on the whole, have minds that microscope. They don't have minds that telescope.

我們選舉出來的政治家 還有我們沒選的政治家，總體來說， 他們的思維方式都是顯微鏡式的。

They look in. They pretend, they behave, as if they believed that every country was an island that existed quite happily, independently of all the others on its own little planet in its own little solar system.

他們沒有望遠鏡式的思維。 他們只看國內。當他們行作起來的時候就假裝 他們在相信好像每個國家都是一座島嶼 獨立而快樂地 存在于自己的小星球 于他國不無相干， 而是在自己的太陽系里。

This is the problem: countries competing against each other, countries fighting against each other. This week, as any week you care to look at, you'll find people actually trying to kill each other from country to country, but even when that's not going on, there's competition between countries, each one trying to shaft the next.

這就是問題所在： 國家間互相競爭， 國家間互相征戰， 這周，或任何一周，如果你認真看的話， 你會發現一個國家和另一個國家的人民在互相殘殺， 就算沒有戰爭， 國家之間也在互相競爭， 每個國家都試圖把別國擠下去。

This is clearly not a good arrangement. We clearly need to change it. We clearly need to find ways of encouraging countries to start working together a little bit better. And why won't they do that? Why is it that our leaders still persist in looking inwards?

這明顯不是個良好的形勢。 我們明顯需要改變現狀。 我們明顯需要找到一些方式 以鼓勵國家之間可以 共同合作得更好。 但他們為什么不這么做呢？ 為什么我們的領袖還堅持只看著自己呢？

Well, the first and most obvious reason is because that's what we ask them to do. That's what we tell them to do. When we elect governments or when we tolerate unelected governments, we're effectively telling them that what we want is for them to deliver us in our country a certain number of things.

最主要和最明顯的理由 就是因為那是我們要求他們這么做的。 這是我們叫他們做的。 當我們選舉政府的時候 或當我們容忍我們沒有選的政府的時候， 我們就是在告訴他們我們想要的 就是讓他們在我們的國家 帶來一系列的舉措。

We want them to deliver prosperity, growth, competitiveness, transparency, justice and all of those things.

我們希望他們帶來繁榮、 發展、競爭力、透明度、正義， 和所有這些事情。

So unless we start asking our governments to think outside a little bit, to consider the global problems that will finish us all if we don't start considering them, then we can hardly blame them if what they carry on doing is looking inwards, if they still have minds that microscope rather than minds that telescope.

所以除非我們要求政府 看遠一點， 考慮一下那些會毀滅我們的全球問題， 如果我們不開始考慮這些事情的話， 那么我們難以指責他們 如果他們繼續只是關注國家內部的話， 如果他們依然只有顯微鏡的頭腦 而沒有望遠鏡頭腦的話。

That's the first reason why things tend not to change.

這是第一個為什么事情很難改變的原因。

The second reason is that these governments, just like all the rest of us, are cultural psychopaths. I don't mean to be rude, but you know what a psychopath is.

第二個原因是這些政府 就像我們一樣， 是文化精神變態。 我并非要無禮， 但你知道精神變態是什么。

A psychopath is a person who, unfortunately for him or her, lacks the ability to really empathize with other human beings. When they look around, they don't see other human beings with deep, rich, three-dimensional personal lives and aims and ambitions.

一個精神變態者 對他／她來說很不幸的， 是缺乏 對其他人類真正的同情能力。 當他們四下環顧， 他們看到的不是 有深度的、內心豐富的、三維的人生 以及夢想和雄心。

What they see is cardboard cutouts, and it's very sad and it's very lonely, and it's very rare, fortunately.

他們看到的是紙片人， 這其實是非常可悲及孤獨的， 但可幸的是這種情況很少見。

But actually, aren't most of us not really so very good at empathy?

但事實上，我們大多數人 難道不是缺乏同情心嗎？

Oh sure, we're very good at empathy when it's a question of dealing with people who kind of look like us and kind of walk and talk and eat and pray and wear like us, but when it comes to people who don't do that, who don't quite dress like us and don't quite pray like us and don't quite talk like us, do we not also have a tendency to see them ever so slightly as cardboard cutouts too?

當然，我們非常有同情心 當問題出在那些 跟我們長得差不多 走路、說話和祈禱的方式差不多 衣著也差不多的人， 但當問題出在那些不那樣做的人， 那些跟我們衣著不同的人， 祈禱方式不同的人， 說話方式不同的人， 我們豈不是傾向于 把他們當成紙片人嗎？ 這是我們需要問自己的問題。

And this is a question we need to ask ourselves. I think constantly we have to monitor it. Are we and our politicians to a degree cultural psychopaths?

我認為我們需要不斷地監督自己。 我們和我們的政黨某個程度上 是不是文化精神變態？

The third reason is hardly worth mentioning because it's so silly, but there's a belief amongst governments that the domestic agenda and the international agenda are incompatible and always will be.

第三個原因都不值一提 因為它太白癡了， 但政府間有一種想法， 那就是國內事務 和國際事務 是不兼容的，并會一直如此。

This is just nonsense. In my day job, I'm a policy adviser. I've spent the last 15 years or so advising governments around the world, and in all of that time I have never once seen a single domestic policy issue that could not be more imaginatively, effectively and rapidly resolved than by treating it as an international problem, looking at the international context, comparing what others have done, bringing in others, working externally instead of working internally.

這是無稽之談。 我的工作是政策顧問。 我過去的15年左右 都在世界各國的政府里做顧問， 整個這段時間我從沒見過 任何一個國家政策問題 會不比國際問題 能夠更具想像力的、 高效并快捷的解決了。 看看國際大環境， 比較其他國家是怎么做的， 請別人進來，外部合作 而不只是內部工作。

And so you may say, well, given all of that, why then doesn't it work? Why can we not make our politicians change? Why can't we demand them?

你可能說，就算這樣， 為什么不奏效呢？ 為什么我們無法讓政黨改變？ 為什么我們無法要求他們？

Well I, like a lot of us, spend a lot of time complaining about how hard it is to make people change, and I don't think we should fuss about it. I think we should just accept that we are an inherently conservative species.

我，就像我們中間許多人，花很多時間抱怨 讓人改變有多困難。 我不認為我們應該對此小題大作。 我覺得我們應該接受 我們是天生非常保守的種類。

We don't like to change. It exists for very sensible evolutionary reasons. We probably wouldn't still be here today if we weren't so resistant to change. It's very simple: Many thousands of years ago, we discovered that if we carried on doing the same things, we wouldn't die, because the things that we've done before by definition didn't kill us, and therefore as long as we carry on doing them, we'll be okay, and it's very sensible not to do anything new, because it might kill you.

我們不喜歡改變。 這種現狀的存在是因為非常合理的進化原因 如果我們不是如此頑固執守的話， 我們今天很可能不會在這里。 很簡單：幾千年前， 我們發現如果我們繼續 做同樣的事情，我們就死不了。 因為我們以前所做的， 肯定讓我們生存下去， 所以只要我們繼續這么做， 我們就沒事， 不去嘗試新事物是很合理的， 因為新事物可能會殺了你。

But of course, there are exceptions to that. Otherwise, we'd never get anywhere. And one of the exceptions, the interesting exception, is when you can show to people that there might be some self-interest in them making that leap of faith and changing a little bit.

但當然，也有例外。 不然我們就無法前進。 一個有趣的例外 是當你告訴別人 滿懷信心 并做出一些改變 是對他們自身有利的時候。

So I've spent a lot of the last 10 or 15 years trying to find out what could be that self-interest that would encourage not just politicians but also businesses and general populations, all of us, to start to think a little more outwardly, to think in a bigger picture, not always to look inwards, sometimes to look outwards.

所以我在過去的10到15年里 試圖找到那個 可以鼓勵不僅是政治家 也包括商家和大眾的自身利益是什么， 我們所有人，開始一點點往遠看， 想想大局， 不要總是只顧自己，偶爾也向外（世界）看看。

And this is where I discovered something quite important. In 2005, I launched a study called the Nation Brands Index.

這時我發現了 一件相當重要的事。 2005年，我展開了一項研究 稱為“國家品牌指數”。

What it is, it's a very large-scale study that polls a very large sample of the world's population, a sample that represents about 70 percent of the planet's population, and I started asking them a series of questions about how they perceive other countries.

這是一個非常龐大的調查 它從世界人口范圍取出龐大樣品數據 這個樣本代表了 地球人口的70%， 我開始問他們一系列的問題 關于他們是如何看待自己國家的。

And the Nation Brands Index over the years has grown to be a very, very large database. It's about 200 billion data points tracking what ordinary people think about other countries and why. Why did I do this?

多年來國家品牌指數 變成了一個非常非常龐大的數據庫。 它具有大概兩千億數據點 記載了常人是如何看待他們國家的 以及為什么。 為什么我要做這件事呢？

Well, because the governments that I advise are very, very keen on knowing how they are regarded. They've known, partly because I've encouraged them to realize it, that countries depend enormously on their reputations in order to survive and prosper in the world. If a country has a great, positive image, like Germany has or Sweden or Switzerland, everything is easy and everything is cheap.

因為我做顧問的政府 非常非常想要知道 他們是如何被看待的。 他們已經了解到，一半是出于 我鼓勵他們來意識到 國家很大程度上 取決于他們的聲譽 來決定他們在世界中的生存及繁榮。 如果一個國家有很偉大很正面的形象， 像德國、瑞典或瑞士， 所有事情就很容易而東西也會很便宜。

You get more tourists. You get more investors. You sell your products more expensively. If, on the other hand, you have a country with a very weak or a very negative image, everything is difficult and everything is expensive.

你能得到游客，你能得到投資商。 你可以高價賣出你的商品。 另一方面，如果你的國家 有一個非常弱或負面的形象， 所有事情就變得困難而且東西昂貴。

So governments care desperately about the image of their country, because it makes a direct difference to how much money they can make, and that's what they've promised their populations they're going to deliver.

所以政府極度關注 國家的形象。 因為它直接影響到 他們能掙多少錢， 這也是他們向國民所承諾的 他們將給予的。

So a couple of years ago, I thought I would take some time out and speak to that gigantic database and ask it, why do some people prefer one country more than another? And the answer that the database gave me completely staggered me. It was 6.8. I haven't got time to explain in detail. Basically what it told me was —

所以幾年以后，我認為我可以 抽出些時間來跟那個龐大的數據庫聊聊 問問它， 為什么有些人更喜歡一個國家 相比于另一個國家？ 數據庫給我的答案 完全出乎我的意料。 答案是6.8。 我沒時間解釋詳情。 基本上它告訴我的是——

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

(Applause) —

（掌聲）——

the kinds of countries we prefer are good countries. We don't admire countries primarily because they're rich, because they're powerful, because they're successful, because they're modern, because they're technologically advanced.

我們喜歡的國家是好國家。 我們不會因為有些國家富有而愛慕它們， 或因為它們有權勢，因為它們成功， 因為他們現代化，因為他們有先進的科技。

We primarily admire countries that are good. What do we mean by good? We mean countries that seem to contribute something to the world in which we live, countries that actually make the world safer or better or richer or fairer. Those are the countries we like.

我們愛慕一個國家因為它們好。 “好”是什么意思？ 我們指的是那些國家 對我們所居住的世界作出了貢獻。 那些讓世界更安全 或更好或富有或更公平的國家。 這些是我們喜歡的國家。

This is a discovery of significant importance — you see where I'm going — because it squares the circle. I can now say, and often do, to any government, in order to do well, you need to do good.

這是一個有重大意義的發現—— 你知道我要說什么了—— 因為它解釋了一切。 我現在可以說，而且經常說，對任何政府， 想要做得好，就要做好事。

If you want to sell more products, if you want to get more investment, if you want to become more competitive, then you need to start behaving, because that's why people will respect you and do business with you, and therefore, the more you collaborate, the more competitive you become.

如果你想賣更多產品， 如果你想得到更多投資， 如果你想變得更有競爭力， 那你就得開始好好表現， 這樣人們才會尊重你 與你展開商務往來， 因此，你合作得越多， 你就越有競爭力。

This is quite an important discovery, and as soon as I discovered this, I felt another index coming on. I swear that as I get older, my ideas become simpler and more and more childish.

這是一個相當重要的發現。 我一發現這一點， 我感到另一個指數的必要性。 我發誓我年齡越大，我的想法就越簡單 也會越孩子氣。

This one is called the Good Country Index, and it does exactly what it says on the tin. It measures, or at least it tries to measure, exactly how much each country on Earth contributes not to its own population but to the rest of humanity. Bizarrely, nobody had ever thought of measuring this before.

這個指數叫好國家指數。 它所做的完全是它的字面意思。 它衡量，起碼試圖衡量， 地球上每個國家到底貢獻了多少 不是對它本身的國民而是其余的人類。 奇怪的是，從來沒有人想過 要來衡量這個。

So my colleague Dr. Robert Govers and I have spent the best part of the last two years, with the help of a large number of very serious and clever people, cramming together all the reliable data in the world we could find about what countries give to the world.

我的同事Robert Govers博士和我花了 過去兩年的大部分時間， 在許多非常認真而聰明的人們的幫助下， 搜集了世界上所有 我們能找到的或國家愿意向世界提供 的數據。

And you're waiting for me to tell you which one comes top. And I'm going to tell you, but first of all I want to tell you precisely what I mean when I say a good country. I do not mean morally good.

你在等我告訴你哪個國家是第一名。 我會告訴你， 但首先讓我告訴你 我對于一個好國家 的精確定義是什么。 我并不是說道德上的好。

When I say that Country X is the goodest country on Earth, and I mean goodest, I don't mean best. Best is something different. When you're talking about a good country, you can be good, gooder and goodest.

當我說某國家 是世界上最好的國家， 而且我說的是最好(goodest)，而不是最優秀的(best)。 最優秀(best)是另一個意思。 當你說一個國家是好國家， 你可以是好的，更好的，和最好的。

It's not the same thing as good, better and best. This is a country which simply gives more to humanity than any other country. I don't talk about how they behave at home because that's measured elsewhere. And the winner is Ireland.

它與優秀的，更優秀的，和最優秀的不同。 這是一個單純貢獻更多 為人類和其他國家的國家。 我不是說它們在家的行為如何， 因為那是用其他東西來衡量的。 優勝者是 愛爾蘭。

(Applause)

（掌聲）

According to the data here, no country on Earth, per head of population, per dollar of GDP, contributes more to the world that we live in than Ireland. What does this mean? This means that as we go to sleep at night, all of us in the last 15 seconds before we drift off to sleep, our final thought should be, godammit, I'm glad that Ireland exists.

根據數據， 世界上沒有任何一個國家，平均每個人， 國內生產總值的每塊錢，比愛爾蘭 給予世界的更多。 這意味著什么？ 這意味著每晚我們睡前， 我們所有人在睡前的15秒鐘， 我們最后的一個想法應該是， 該死的，我真為愛爾蘭的存在感到慶幸。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And that —

這——

(Applause) —

（掌聲）——

In the depths of a very severe economic recession, I think that there's a really important lesson there, that if you can remember your international obligations whilst you are trying to rebuild your own economy, that's really something.

在每場劇烈的經濟蕭條期， 我想這都是一個重要的功課， 如果你能記得你的國際責任， 在你重建本國經濟的同時， 那是件了不起的事。 芬蘭排名差不太多。

Finland ranks pretty much the same. The only reason why it's below Ireland is because its lowest score is lower than Ireland's lowest score.

它之所以排在愛爾蘭之后 是因為它的最低分比愛爾蘭的最低分低。

Now the other thing you'll notice about the top 10 there is, of course, they're all, apart from New Zealand, Western European nations.

另外一件你注意到的前十名的事情是 當然，除了新西蘭以外，它們都是 歐州國家。

They're also all rich. This depressed me, because one of the things that I did not want to discover with this index is that it's purely the province of rich countries to help poor countries.

它們也很富有。 這讓我很沮喪， 因為我不想在這套數據中 發現 純粹是富國 在幫助窮國。

This is not what it's all about. And indeed, if you look further down the list, I don't have the slide here, you will see something that made me very happy indeed, that Kenya is in the top 30, and that demonstrates one very, very important thing. This is not about money.

這不是這個指數的含義。 的確，如果你繼續往下看名單， 我并沒有幻燈片，但你會發現 一些讓我非常愉快但事情， 肯尼亞在前30名里， 這表明了一件非常非常重要但事情。 這與錢無關。

This is about attitude. This is about culture. This is about a government and a people that care about the rest of the world and have the imagination and the courage to think outwards instead of only thinking selfishly.

這是態度問題。 這是文化問題。 這是那些政府和人民 他們關注世界其他地區 并有想像力及勇氣 去向外看而不只是自私的考慮自己。

I'm going to whip through the other slides just so you can see some of the lower-lying countries. There's Germany at 13th, the U.S. comes 21st, Mexico comes 66th, and then we have some of the big developing countries, like Russia at 95th, China at 107th.

我會很快的略過其他幻燈片 為了讓你看到一些排在后面的國家。 德國第13，美國第21， 墨西哥第66， 然后我們看到一些發展中國家， 俄國第95，中國107。

Countries like China and Russia and India, which is down in the same part of the index, well, in some ways, it's not surprising. They've spent a great deal of time over the last decades building their own economy, building their own society and their own polity, but it is to be hoped that the second phase of their growth will be somewhat more outward-looking than the first phase has been so far.

像中國、俄國、印度這樣的國家， 大概在排名在差不多的位置， 從某種意義上來說并不讓人吃驚。 他們花很多時間 在過去的幾十年中建立自己的經濟系統， 建立他們自己的社會和體系， 但我們希望是， 他們發展的第二個階段 能夠比第一階段 更看得遠。

And then you can break down each country in terms of the actual datasets that build into it. I'll allow you to do that. From midnight tonight it's going to be on goodcountry.org, and you can look at the country. You can look right down to the level of the individual datasets.

然后你可以將每個國家 按實際多數據集分開看。 我會讓你這么做。 從今天半夜開始它會在goodcountry.org上， 你可以看看每個國家。 你可以直接看到每個層次的單個數據集。

Now that's the Good Country Index. What's it there for? Well, it's there really because I want to try to introduce this word, or reintroduce this word, into the discourse. I've had enough hearing about competitive countries.

這就是好國家指數。 它有什么目的？ 它存在的目的是因為我想嘗試 想介紹這個詞， 或重新介紹這個詞，在我們的語境中。 我已經聽夠了有競爭力的國家。

I've had enough hearing about prosperous, wealthy, fast-growing countries. I've even had enough hearing about happy countries because in the end that's still selfish. That's still about us, and if we carry on thinking about us, we are in deep, deep trouble. I think we all know what it is that we want to hear about.

我聽夠了 繁榮、富有、發展迅速的國家。 我甚至聽夠了快樂的國家 因為說到底這都是自私的。 都是關乎我們自己。 如果我們繼續地考慮自己， 我們就有大麻煩了。 我想我們都知道 我們想聽到什么。

We want to hear about good countries, and so I want to ask you all a favor. I'm not asking a lot. It's something that you might find easy to do and you might even find enjoyable and even helpful to do, and that's simply to start using the word "good" in this context.

我們想聽到關于好國家， 所以我想請求你一件事。 我所要求的不多。 對你來說可能很容易 你可能也會覺得做這件事很高興 甚至很有幫助， 那就是單純地開始使用“好”這個詞 在這個大環境中。

When you think about your own country, when you think about other people's countries, when you think about companies, when you talk about the world that we live in today, start using that word in the way that I've talked about this evening.

當你想到你自己的國家， 當你想到其他人的國家， 當你想到公司， 當你談論我們如今所居住的世界， 開始用這個詞 而且是用我們今晚談論的方式使用。

Not good, the opposite of bad, because that's an argument that never finishes. Good, the opposite of selfish, good being a country that thinks about all of us. That's what I would like you to do, and I'd like you to use it as a stick with which to beat your politicians. When you elect them, when you reelect them, when you vote for them, when you listen to what they're offering you, use that word, "good," and ask yourself, "Is that what a good country would do?"

不是“壞”的反義詞“好”， 因為這是一個永無完結的爭論。 是“自私”的反義詞“好”， 好的意思是這個國家為所有人考慮。 這是我希望你做的， 我希望你用它當一根棍子 來鞭策你的政黨。 當你選舉他們或重選他們的時候， 當你為他們投票，聽他們說 他們能給你帶來什么的時候， 用“好”這個詞， 并問你自己， “這是一個好國家會做的事嗎？”

And if the answer is no, be very suspicious. Ask yourself, is that the behavior of my country? Do I want to come from a country where the government, in my name, is doing things like that? Or do I, on the other hand, prefer the idea of walking around the world with my head held high thinking, "Yeah, I'm proud to come from a good country"?

如果答案是不，那就要持懷疑態度。 問你自己，這種行為 是我的國家該有的嗎？ 我愿意來自于一個 政府以我的名義 做這種事情的國家嗎？ 或者我，從另一方面來說， 更喜歡在周游世界的時候 可以抬頭挺胸的說，“是的， 我很自豪的來自于一個好國家“？

And everybody will welcome you. And everybody in the last 15 seconds before they drift off to sleep at night will say, "Gosh, I'm glad that person's country exists."

每個人都會歡迎你。 每個人都會在 他們睡前都15秒鐘說， “我為這個國家都存在感到驕傲。”

Ultimately, that, I think, is what will make the change. That word, "good," and the number 6.8 and the discovery that's behind it have changed my life.

最終，我認為， 這是改變的原因。 這個詞，“好”， 還有6.8這個數字 還有這背后的發現 改變了我的人生。

I think they can change your life, and I think we can use it to change the way that our politicians and our companies behave, and in doing so, we can change the world. I've started thinking very differently about my own country since I've been thinking about these things. I used to think that I wanted to live in a rich country, and then I started thinking I wanted to live in a happy country, but I began to realize, it's not enough.

我想它們也能改變你的人生， 我認為我們能用它來改變 我們的政黨和企業的行為， 這樣，我們就可以改變世界。 我開始以非常不同的方式考慮 我自己的國家，自從我開始思考這些事情。 我曾經想我會愿意住在一個富有的國家， 后來我想我會愿意住在一個快樂的國家， 但我開始意識到，這些都不夠。

I don't want to live in a rich country. I don't want to live in a fast-growing or competitive country. I want to live in a good country, and I so, so hope that you do too.

我不想住在一個富有的國家。 我不想住在一個快速發展 或是競爭力強的國家。 我想住在一個好國家， 而且我十分、十分希望你也這么想。

Thank you.

多謝。

(Applause)
 

（掌聲）

更多 英語演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語演講稿 相關文章和資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全